Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[onigame]

I'm currently working with Goko on doing an overhaul that will clean up the "when-buy" / "when-gain" bugs, as well as getting Possession into a playable state so that Alchemy can be released.  (By the way, Alchemy will probably be released before all the "when-buy"/"when-gain" bugs are fixed.)

One niggly bit that will actually require some substantial code change is playing Possession in a 1-player game.  Although the official rules don't allow for 1-player games, the codebase supports it and you can even do it on the live server (just go to the "Secret Chamber" room).  Most of the card rules generalize and work fine in 1-player games.

Possession is a bit of an exception.  Technically, if you go with the letter of the rules, you should be able to play a turn where you are Possessing yourself.  It would increment the round count differently, and the behaviour of cards you trash would be different on the Possessed turn.

Currently the implementation of Possession just ignores turns where you're Possessing yourself, which is clean and easy to code, and also means that internal routines can check quickly whether a turn is a Possession turn by checking to see if the controlling player and the current player are the same player.  If we want a more correct implementation, a bunch of code needs to change, and I'm not sure whether it is worth the effort to make all these changes to support a mode that isn't in the official rules anyway (namely, 1-player games).

So I'm throwing up this poll.  Please vote and I'll use the feedback to make a recommendation to Goko as to where to put this on their priority list (or if it's going to go there at all).

[Donald X.]

Voted "completely unimportant."

I think at some point there might be puzzles on Goko, play this game with these constraints and try to do well by some metric. For those puzzles there might sometimes be no opponents, and for those situations I would not be using Possession anyway. The only thing you possibly get out of Possession there is showing off the wackiness of the implementation of Possession for single player games. I would never be interested in doing that.

If you are playing some games by yourself to test some strategy for how many turns it takes you to accomplish something, and that strategy somehow involves Possession, man, possessing yourself isn't telling you anything there anyway, except for the mirror match. Even in that case you can just subtract one from the turn count and you've covered cases that don't involve Outpost, Trader, or trashing cards. I am fine with giving up on Possession / those things mirror match solo testing. You can still test whatever strategy vs. a bot or a friend.

[Beyond Awesome]

I could care less. This is not something I would bother trying in a solatire Dominion game.

[Morgrim7]

the only reason why id actually play on Goko instead of isotropic is to see how Possession looks, or if more people start to play there.

[hsiale]

Voted completely unimportant. I see Possession (and Masquerade too) as a kind of an attack which only technically is not one (because strange things will happen if you Moat them). And I see no reason for attacks to work fully in solo games.

But thanks for starting this thread, knowing how to play a solo game on Goko is very useful.

[blueblimp]

"Somewhat unimportant", but only because it allows for silly puzzle solutions. It's not actually important at all.

[Jimmmmm]

Voted completely unimportant. I see Possession (and Masquerade too) as a kind of an attack which only technically is not one (because strange things will happen if you Moat them). And I see no reason for attacks to work fully in solo games.

But thanks for starting this thread, knowing how to play a solo game on Goko is very useful.

This actually really annoys me. They are not attacks because they don't generally attack. In most cases Possession is as much an attack as Tribute is.

[Grujah]

Voted "completely unimportant."

Puzzles with 1p possessions are a PITA anyway.

[dondon151]

I could care less. This is not something I would bother trying in a solatire Dominion game.

* couldn't care less

This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine.

[Kirian]

Voted "completely unimportant."

Puzzles with 1p possessions are a PITA anyway.

And in fact a ton of the puzzles rule out using Possession because of just how wacky it is.

This does seem to suggest we'll be seeing 1P play back on Goko though, which is good to hear.

[Drab Emordnilap]

I could care less. This is not something I would bother trying in a solatire Dominion game.

* couldn't care less

This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine.

Maybe he honestly means that, although he could in fact care less, he could also care more, and so although this is something that matters some amount, it doesn't matter a large amount.

[HiveMindEmulator]

I could care less. This is not something I would bother trying in a solatire Dominion game.

* couldn't care less

This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine.

I could care less how you feel about it

[Axxle]

If possession does something completely unexpected in a single player game (like make the game unplayable), I think something should be in place to prevent players from even selecting it in those games.  But other than that I don't think it's important at all that possession works in single player.

[SirPeebles]

I voted "My decision of whether to play on Goko won't be affected by this, but it annoys me mildly."  I don't agree that this is "Somewhat Important", but the phrase accurately describes my sentiment.  I really want the cards implemented properly, and it does rub me the wrong way that this card won't work properly, even if only in the obscure case of a one player game.  I would love to say that this isn't worth delaying other features for, so long as you get around to fixing it eventually.  But then I'd be worried about recoding the card later, and what bugs that might introduce.

[Donald X.]

I could care less. This is not something I would bother trying in a solatire Dominion game.

* couldn't care less

This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine.

It's a sarcastic expression dude. I could care less! In fact I could not actually care less. Get it now?

Similarly people will say "yeah right" when they mean "I don't believe that at all" and so on. That's how sarcasm works.

[Morgrim7]

hey. people.





its not a big deal

[Ozle]

In the grand scheme of things....I would probably put this at the bottom, right beneath the fact that Goko doesn't give away free Ice Cream

[dondon151]

It's a sarcastic expression dude. I could care less! In fact I could not actually care less. Get it now?

Similarly people will say "yeah right" when they mean "I don't believe that at all" and so on. That's how sarcasm works.

Either you are trying to be funny or it is not really a sarcastic expression...

[Donald X.]

It's a sarcastic expression dude. I could care less! In fact I could not actually care less. Get it now?

Similarly people will say "yeah right" when they mean "I don't believe that at all" and so on. That's how sarcasm works.

Either you are trying to be funny or it is not really a sarcastic expression...

I am always trying to be funny and it really is a sarcastic expression. I am not being sarcastic when I say that or this. Since we're on the internet it's hard to ever believe a statement like that; surely I am being double-super-sarcastic. No, it really is a sarcastic expression. You can tell because it's false. Sarcasm uses false statements to indicate the opposing true sentiments. I could care less. As if I could care less, I mean really. Possession in single player games. Man.

Look in your heart, you will see that I'm right. Or do some research. You will find that some people do not get this expression, while others have figured it out, and some people will say "so that's how it is, but don't use it, because some people don't like it." I'm no wuss, over the internet anyway; I'm willing to use a good idiom even if some language prescriptivists don't like it.

Moving on, when people say "literally" in a way other people don't like, as they have been doing for 150 years or so incidentally (not counting the previous meaning some people didn't like), it is an exaggeration. If I say "I ate a million hamburgers," you know I did not actually eat a million hamburgers; "a million" is an exaggeration there. If I say "I literally ate a million hamburgers," that's even more of an exaggeration. They do not somehow mean "I figuratively ate a million hamburgers" but are accidentally saying literally instead of figuratively because they so dumb. How anyone can think that's what's going on is beyond me.

hth

[dondon151]

Look in your heart, you will see that I'm right. Or do some research. You will find that some people do not get this expression, while others have figured it out, and some people will say "so that's how it is, but don't use it, because some people don't like it." I'm no wuss, over the internet anyway; I'm willing to use a good idiom even if some language prescriptivists don't like it.

I did my research. My research seems to suggest that this unintuitive idiom arose from lazy Americans dropping syllables and not paying attention to actual word meanings. I'm not very convinced that some clever guy took the existing idiom "I couldn't care less" and decided to add a touch of irony by negating the negative, because why would he do that? Doesn't make much sense. It's not like all of a sudden, I'm going "a ha ha, I get it! That's funny! You're funny!"

[Donald X.]

I did my research. My research seems to suggest that this unintuitive idiom arose from lazy Americans dropping syllables and not paying attention to actual word meanings. I'm not very convinced that some clever guy took the existing idiom "I couldn't care less" and decided to add a touch of irony by negating the negative, because why would he do that? Doesn't make much sense. It's not like all of a sudden, I'm going "a ha ha, I get it! That's funny! You're funny!"

I don't see why it's remotely relevant what whatever person thought the first time it was said. Language is what it is due to shared usage, which only happens over time. I don't see why you're characterizing Americans as lazy either - as if dropping "n't" is such a time-saver. In fact the overall message I get is that you feel *superior* for your interpretation of the phrase, that's right, and to get that good feeling of superiority, you have to *put down* the other people. They're lazy! Therefore they don't get to decide how words work, while you, the hardworking guy, do. They get to decide though, no matter how lazy they are. And you say "not paying attention to actual word meanings," when actual word meanings are *entirely due to usage.* All they need to do is keep using the words the same way and then that's what they mean. That's how all words get their meanings.

You also put down the idiom as unintuitive. Language is full of such stuff so you've got zilch there. Yes, if you designed your own language and no-one spoke it, you could make everything perfect and it would stay that way.

[theory]

There are limits to descriptivism!  Unless you think there is literally no such thing as an incorrect usage of language.

Everyone agrees that at some point, a sufficiently popular misuse of language is no longer a misuse of language.  But where do you draw that line?  I think that line has to be really damn high if you are talking about literally inverting the meaning of a phrase.  Like if I get my friends to start exchanging the meanings of "bus" and "weasel".  We're still wrong, even if everyone we know starts talking about double-decker weasels.

I don't do it to feel superior.  Prescriptivism is not all about being snooty and pointing out mistakes.  Rules are important because incorrect usage makes it more difficult to communicate effectively.  For example, transposition of literally/figuratively make it difficult for me to write "literally" and predict that my audience will understand my true meaning.

[eHalcyon]

In the case of "I could care less", it's worth noting that people who say this almost invariably mean to say "I couldn't care less".  The idea that they are trying to express is that the object of discussion is not worthy of any concern, and that the amount they care is at a minimal.  It is not a sarcastic or ironic usage of the phrase.  They say the words seriously, even though their intent is the exact opposite of what the words actually mean.

Correcting these mistakes isn't about being superior, it's about facilitating communication.  This particular case isn't all that important, but these things still matter.  If the words people say aren't the words they mean, how can we understand them?  We might as well all be lawyers*.

* just jokes 

[dondon151]

I don't see why you're characterizing Americans as lazy either - as if dropping "n't" is such a time-saver. In fact the overall message I get is that you feel *superior* for your interpretation of the phrase, that's right, and to get that good feeling of superiority, you have to *put down* the other people. They're lazy!

Wow, angry much? Hey, how about this copout?

I was being sarcastic. You know, 'cuz like, I was being ironic with the word "lazy;" I was actually implying that Americans were consciously innovative and revolutionary in their misuse of language, no matter how apparently unintentional it may have been.

Now don't you feel like a fool? (This is me being bona-fide sarcastic. Hopefully I've made a point by example.)

And you're making the ridiculous assumption that I'm some kind of elitist grammar maven when I just pointed out, hey, if you don't care at all, that means that you couldn't care less. Don't read too deeply into it. Clearly I am not reading deeply into the irony that people elect to use by using "could" instead of "couldn't," because most people whom I have heard use "could" do not actually identify any mistakes in the literal meaning of the expression. They think that it means exactly what they think it means, and those who give it an extra moment of thought wonder whether the proper formulation uses the positive or negative. Then they decide that it's not worth their time or effort and proceed with using the literally incorrect formulation. Isn't this being "lazy?"

[thirtyseven]

Just when I thought this thread could get any worse...